User:Sophieheo0420/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am currently taking Anatomy and Physiology class at Hunter college. The topics are very intriguing and it is a applicable knowledge in the health care field.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic.

The lead includes brief description of the definition, history and role of the clinical physiology.

The lead includes information that is not present in the article but it uses internal link.

The lead is concise and sufficiently describes the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic.

The content's latest source reference is 2013, this article needs to be updated.

This contents has one dead link that needs to be fixed.

No, It does not


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone of this article is neutral.

No, the article is not biased.

No, there are none.

No, the article does not have any personal opinion.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

No, there is one dead link and it needs to be fixed.

No, 5th reference's link is also not working.

No, latest source in this article is 2013.

Unfortunately, many sources are not properly cited.

No, two of them are not working.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Yes. the article is written in concise and clear way.

No. This article does not have any grammar and spelling errors.

This article has two sections which are history of clinical physiology and role of clinical physiology. this article needs more information to support the main point.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

No, there is no images in this article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Editors removed dead link in the article, corrected grammar errors and added some related articles in this page.

This article hasn't yet been rated.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article needs more informations and citations for supporting the main point.

This article described the difference between human physiology and clinical physiology, and states clinical physiology is not a medical speciality for physicians except for Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

This article can be improved by adding more citations and researching more up to date articles.

This article needs more improvements.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: